The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation of territorial jurisdiction under Rule 6 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008, and the application of the maxim 'Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant' in determining the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral):

1. Vide decision dated August 06, 2014, OA No.47/2014 filed by the writ petitioner has been directed to be returned to the petitioner, holding that the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal at Delhi did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the original application in view of Rule 6 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 and the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as AIR 2004 SC 2321 M/s Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. as also the decision of a Five Judge Bench of this Court reported as AIR 2011 Delhi 174 Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. The Tribunal has noted that its view finds support from an unreported decision dated January 23, 2014 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) 57/2012 Hav. Venkatagireppa vs. UOI & Ors.

2. We note that the factual matrix has not been noted by the Tribunal, and thus it would be advised that before we look into the decision referred to by the Tribunal for its opinion it would be advisable to note the relevant facts.

3. The petitioner was granted a Short Service Commission in the Indian Army on March 07, 1987 in the Regiment of Artillery. On completing five years’ service successfully the petitioner was granted permanent commission in the year 1992. The petitioner earned promotions and attained the rank of Lieutenant Colonel on December 16 2004.

4. Not being found suitable for promotion to the rank of Colonel at the board appraisals, the petitioner was posted to a National Cadet Corps Unit with a direction to take over the appointment of Officer Commanding First Bihar Artillery Regiment, NCC, as part of NCC Group, Patna on January 29, 2010.

5. Alleging that the petitioner had proceeded on leave without handing over charge, a Court of Inquiry was ordered. The deposition of various witnesses were recorded at the Court of Inquiry and the proceedings were sent to the Head Quarter (Director General), NCC at Delhi.

6. On August 23, 2011, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with the Court of Inquiry proceedings and other related documents, requiring petitioner to render an explanation with respect to the findings at the Court of Inquiry, which indicted the petitioner. He submitted a reply thereto. On November 02, 2011 the Director General, NCC awarded penalty of censure. Writ petitioner’s statutory representation against the recordable penalty of censure was rejected by the Central Government on March 20, 2013. The penalty, as claimed by the petitioner, adversely affected his further consideration to the rank of Colonel (TS).

7. The original application was filed by the petitioner before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at Delhi praying that the order levying penalty of censure as also the appellate order be quashed.

8. Treating as if cause of action having accrued in Delhi had been pleaded with respect to the statutory appeal filed being rejected by the Central Government at Delhi, noting the law declared by the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots’s case (supra) and the decision of this Court in Sterling Agro’s case (supra) and the decision in Hav.Venkatagireppa’s case (supra), the Tribunal has held that the Principal Bench at Delhi would have no jurisdiction. An additional reason has been given by the Tribunal interpreting Rule 6 of the Armed Forces (Procedure) Rules, 2008 applying the maxim ‘Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant’. The view taken by the Tribunal is that in view of clause (i) sub-Rule (1) of Rule 6 the place where the applicant is posted for the time being or was last posted or attached, jurisdiction would be determined with respect to the territory thereof and said clause was the special provision made on the matter of jurisdiction and hence would exclude the general provision. To quote, the Tribunal has held:-

“The Rules are a self contained Code and have substituted the general provisions under the civil law including “that the pl